The estranged wife of George Zimmerman opted not to press charges against her husband Monday after police in Florida responded to her sobbing 911 call reporting he had punched her father and was threatening them with a gun.

jimmiejaz:The estranged wife of George Zimmerman opted not to press charges against her husband Monday after police in Florida responded to her sobbing 911 call reporting he had punched her father and was threatening them with a gun.

Fark It:cameroncrazy1984: Fark It: You're right, they need to be changed to allow conjecture, hyperbole, and speculation to be admissible and trump physical evidence

You're right, there was no physical evidence that Trayvon started the fight.

There was no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight, and no evidence that he even threw a punch.

There was also evidence that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed with a gun and therefore was legally justified in attempting to beat Zimmerman into unconsciousness IF ZImmerman initiated the fight. If the other person is defending themselves from your deadly weapon, you shouldn't be allowed to claim it was self defense. As to who initiated the fight, the evidence is really a toss up. The only way to break that tie would be for Martin to testify, but he can't, because HE IS FARKING DEAD.

Trespassing on another's property and threatening them with a gun, huh? Sounds like time for a good old fashion Standin' yer Ground. I certainly wouldn't have shed a tear if they shot that fat bastard right in his face, and filed SYG immunity.

Treygreen13:Coco LaFemme: Treygreen13: Coco LaFemme: Whatever your personal opinion of the Trayvon Martin case, one of them was armed with the gun, the other had iced tea and Skittles, and the one with the gun isn't in jail.

Luckily for Zimmerman, his trial (and the rest of the trials in the country) aren't conducted in Coco LaFemme's Court of Public Opinion.

You're right, that is a good thing. I never said otherwise. I'm allowed to not like how the verdict of a trial came out. I'm allowed to think that a mistake had been made. Just like people who think different are allowed to say the right decision was made. That's how this weird "free speech" thing works.

I'll make you a deal. You show me where I told you that you can't have your opinion and I'll buy you a month of TotalFark.

I didn't say you said I couldn't have my own opinion. Those words occurred nowhere in my response. Saying that I'm allowed to have an opinion is not the same as accusing you of telling me I can't. Reading is fundamental, Sparkles.

arentol:There was also evidence that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed with a gun and therefore was legally justified in attempting to beat Zimmerman into unconsciousness IF ZImmerman initiated the fight. If the other person is defending themselves from your deadly weapon, you shouldn't be allowed to claim it was self defense. As to who initiated the fight, the evidence is really a toss up. The only way to break that tie would be for Martin to testify, but he can't, because HE IS FARKING DEAD.

"Domestic violence can't be invoked because she has changed her story and says she didn't see a firearm," Bracknell said.

The dispute "was between him and his wife and her father,'' Morgan said. "There were some allegations that there had been an assault, but we could not confirm any of it.''

Translation: she started the fight just like the statistics say she probably did...then she makes a fake sobbing call to 911 to put the blame on him...and adds in the part about him having a gun for good measure.

Only problem is that the cops didnt find him to be the initiator of the violence...and she then admits she made up the part about him having a gun.

She needs to be in jail.

Fark zimmerman...but women pull this "he hit me first" shiat all the time and the man is ALWAYS assumed to be guilty.

This isnt about zimmerman..this is about domestic violence and the FACT that more then 70% of the time, the woman initiates thr violence, but the man gets the blame 90% of the time.

Coco LaFemme:I didn't say you said I couldn't have my own opinion. Those words occurred nowhere in my response. Saying that I'm allowed to have an opinion is not the same as accusing you of telling me I can't. Reading is fundamental, Sparkles.

Oh so you just wanted to remind us all that the 1st Amendment is still around and that you're allowed to have opinions. Thanks for the update kiddo. You're really contributing!

that bosnian sniper:Trespassing on another's property and threatening them with a gun, huh? Sounds like time for a good old fashion Standin' yer Ground. I certainly wouldn't have shed a tear if they shot that fat bastard right in his face, and filed SYG immunity.

that bosnian sniper:Trespassing on another's property and threatening them with a gun, huh? Sounds like time for a good old fashion Standin' yer Ground. I certainly wouldn't have shed a tear if they shot that fat bastard right in his face, and filed SYG immunity.

Except the part where his wife has dropped her claim that a gun was involved at all, officers found no gun, and officers found no evidence of any assault.

Zimmerman and his lawyers never invoked the Stand Your Ground law. It had no bearing on the case or Zimmerman's defense. Zimmerman's story through the whole thing, starting from the initial police response up through his acquittal, was that Martin was on top of him bashing his head into the concrete.

The Stand Your Ground statue only applies when you have the option to retreat. There is no reasonable way to retreat from someone straddling you on the ground. Every time you bring up Stand Your Ground it shows that you're a completely uninformed idiot that's blathering something you saw on a morning cable news show.

NightOwl2255:I see more ZAC'ers are here defending poor, maligned St. Zimmerman.

Rule #1 of the ZAC, St. Zimmerman is incapable of doing wrong. Rule #2, if St. Zimmerman does wrong, see Rule #1.

Once you grasp that logic, you'll understand why it's impossible to have a rational discussion with a ZAC'er.

Which is totally worse than the J4T crowd which are a bunch of retarded children who immediately believe everything they hear or see and formulate opinions based on their imagination rather than substantiated evidence. There is also a big difference in defending the character of Zimmerman and calling people idiots for immediately jumping to the conclusion that GZ did anything that his soon-to-be-ex-wife suggested he did and then CONTINUES to believe despite contradictory evidence and despite the evolution of the story. It doesn't matter that there is no evidence of a gun ever being present and she is retracting her previous statements and not pressing charges nope. It MUST be some other reason that she is retracting it. I am not placing any bets on what he did or did not do, but seriously you are one to talk about rational discussions. The J4T crowd is anything BUT rational. Whenever they and you post, it is like I am transported to Idiocracy world.

you are a puppet:birdmanesq: Phinn: birdmanesq: stonelotus: everyone seems to be overlooking the important question here and that is... did the crime rate go up or down in Zimmerman's neighborhood after Martin got plugged? Because I'd be highly amused if all those unsolved break-ins coincidentally stopped.

Because black people, am I right?

Zimmerman's former neighborhood didn't have a rash of break-ins by elderly Chinese women, that's for sure.

Want to guess the actual demographic?

You know what my second favorite fallacy is? Any guesses?

What's funny is this Phinn guy has spent the last year defending Zimmerman and pretending there was no racial motive, but by trying to be clever with that last post, he just admitted that yes, Zimmerman was following Trayvon because he was black.

that bosnian sniper:Florida is still a castle doctrine state. One of the strongest in the country, as a matter of fact.He was still trespassing, which justifies the use of lethal force.

First off, you don't know whether he was trespassing or not. Simply being an unwanted visitor on a property doesn't make you a trespasser.

Second, castle doctrine laws don't give you carte blanche to shoot someone in your home. Typically, the law requires 1) unlawful forced entry and 2) the occupants must believe that the intruder intends bodily harm and 3) the occupants must not have instigated the conflict.

At the minimum, the 911 call would have been very different if he had forced entry into the house. Since he didn't, a castle doctrine shooting wouldn't have been justified. It also looks like she was the one instigating the dispute.

If you let someone into your house who then becomes violent towards you, you can still shoot them under the normal rules of self-defense, but a SYG justification doesn't hold water at that point.

Rule #1 of the ZAC, St. Zimmerman is incapable of doing wrong. Rule #2, if St. Zimmerman does wrong, see Rule #1.

Once you grasp that logic, you'll understand why it's impossible to have a rational discussion with a ZAC'er.

Which is totally worse than the J4T crowd which are a bunch of retarded children who immediately believe everything they hear or see and formulate opinions based on their imagination rather than substantiated evidence. There is also a big difference in defending the character of Zimmerman and calling people idiots for immediately jumping to the conclusion that GZ did anything that his soon-to-be-ex-wife suggested he did and then CONTINUES to believe despite contradictory evidence and despite the evolution of the story. It doesn't matter that there is no evidence of a gun ever being present and she is retracting her previous statements and not pressing charges nope. It MUST be some other reason that she is retracting it. I am not placing any bets on what he did or did not do, but seriously you are one to talk about rational discussions. The J4T crowd is anything BUT rational. Whenever they and you post, it is like I am transported to Idiocracy world.

And my point is proved. St. Zimmerman can do no wrong and must be white knighted at all cost.

Can we stop hearing about it every time George Zimmerman takes a crap?

I dunno what happened between him and his wife, but a jilted lover is about the least reliable source there is. I know all sorts of people who embellish or flat out make up things about their ex during a breakup.

The All-Powerful Atheismo:This is factually wrong. Stand Your Ground applies regardless of whether you think the lawyers "invoked" it, so it very much has a bearing on the case, as was stated by a member of the JURY.

You are incorrect. The following jury instructions stemmed from common law (not Stand Your Ground):

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Just because the instructions include the phrase "stand your ground" does not mean that the defense was invoking the Stand Your Ground law, or that the jury were using the Stand Your Ground law to reason about the case. Case in point- the defense established beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was underneath Martin at the time of the shooting, so the above description applies equally in that context (Zimmerman had no duty to retreat because of his position) or in general (A person has no duty to retreat in general self defense).

Even if you think I'm wrong about the jury instructions, and you're welcome to believe that I'm wrong, you cannot deny that the Stand Your Ground provisions are moot once you've accepted that Zimmerman was on the ground and unable to escape. The presence of the law (or lack thereof) would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Ergo, Stand Your Ground had no bearing on the trial.

James10952001:Can we stop hearing about it every time George Zimmerman takes a crap?

I dunno what happened between him and his wife, but a jilted lover is about the least reliable source there is. I know all sorts of people who embellish or flat out make up things about their ex during a breakup.

Mugato:Holy shiat, are you people still arguing about this? Do you really think you're going to change anyone's mind about this thing? A psycho gun nut stalked a kid, may have gotten beaten up, although photo evidence says he didn't, shot the kid to death and not only got away with it but made money off of it. This is not the first time shiat like this has happened.